User reviews

I think the original Candyman is a very good horror film and builds upon the mythos of such urban legends as "Bloody Mary" and so on and so forth. It didn't feature the best acting in the world but it was suitable and the atmosphere was very scary.

The sequel, "Candyman II: Farewell to the Flesh," is as most horror sequels typically are -- inferior and less scary. It's like "Halloween II," "Friday the 13th Part II" and "Psycho II": not as good as the original! Yet for what it is, "Candyman II" is quite entertaining, and still manages to remain rather atmospheric. The film takes place in New Orleans around the Mardi Gras and it's got some good scary segments. Some aren't so scary but are fun to watch. We know what's going to happen but it's still entertaining.

No this isn't expertly made but it isn't mind-numbingly bad as some of the genre are. Basically it's loads of blood but it also retains its creepy cinematography and the direction is better than expected.

Overall this kept me entertained, which is all I expected in the first place.

They had to do it. They had to make a sequel to one of the greatest horror movies of the 90s. But it's always sad to see how much difference in quality there has to be. I have to say, as far as sequels of slasher movies go, this ain't that bad. It has good production values. But of course the great acting performances of the original are gone except for Tony Todd's, who is almost equally as good as he was in the original. But also gone are the great editing and photography, the gritty realistic feel of the original, the eerie and moody score of Philip Glass. Candyman just continues ripping people up with motives that are standard in slasher movies. The bees are involved more in the gory scenes, but are still underused.

Not half as good as the first movie. I haven't seen the third nor am i interested in doing so.

Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh is actually a good sequel to the successful original. This one goes more in-depth than the original as we find out how Candyman came about and we see how he was killed. The plot is somewhat similar to the original. Candyman has moved from the slums of Chicago to the streets of New Orleans, during Mardi Gras. A schoolteacher named Annie Tarrant, whose father was murdered "Candyman-style" a few years earlier, does not believe in Candyman and says his name 5 times into a mirror to prove to her students he doesn't exist. Wrong move Annie. Soon after she does this a series of brutal murders occur while Candyman seduces her to "Be with him". Lots of bees and blood in this good sequel!

The Candyman legend moves on to New Orleans, and has a whole new set of victims. Annie Tarrant (Kelly Rowan) is a school teacher. Her father was killed by the Candyman. Her brother Ethan (William O'Leary) is wrongly accused of murders, the latest being a Candyman denial writer.

The change in setting concerns me, but New Orleans has some great potential for urban legends. It goes into the life of Daniel Robitaille a little bit more with maybe a possible way to kill him once and for all. But it's not as creepy as it needs to be. The movie lacks any tension or fear.

Kelly Rowan is playing a typical scared victim. At least she has the skills to back it up. But the atmosphere isn't up to the original. It's all a weaker version of itself. It certainly doesn't have as powerful of an ending as the original.

Candyman was a creative horror masterpiece with a fantastic premise, Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh had the stupidest, most overused and pathetic premise. It held the foul stench of cheap knock offs. Stealing plots from Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street and every other slasher film. It was so intolerable and stupid that it brings the term sequel to a new low.

In New Orleans during the Mardi Gras festival an author who wrote a book about the legend of the Candyman is murdered and someone who he had a confrontation with that night is accused of the act. Although the accuser's sister a schoolteacher tries to discover who actually did kill the expert and learns that the legend of The Candyman is for real. She has conjured up the mythical serial killer by repeating his name in front of the mirror five times. This is where the horrifying nightmare begins and some surprising revelations occur.

The sequel to the underrated original you could say its just another slasher because it lacks the psychological edge, but I thought it was a reasonably good one and above the usual routine slasher. Sure it doesn't have the hypnotic power and impact of the original, but it still delivers enough well arranged shocks and has an mildly interesting plot that delves a little a bit more into the Candyman's background. With it showing us flashbacks of the painful ordeal he faced and how he became this legend. The plot isn't entirely focused on the Candyman legend (like the original was), with the investigation leading more towards the sister finding out about her family secrets while trying to get her brother of the hook and basically the legend is woven into it. Though, it's not as smart, or incredibly gripping this time around, with it leading more towards graphic violence and having some tedious moments slowing down the pace. It starts off rather slow, but it gets better as the story moves along and some moderate surprises pop up, but really it isn't that hard to guess to where the story is heading and some things just don't add up. The cloud of mystery around the Candyman just seems to be gone, or I should say far less evoking, with it seamlessly rehashing a lot material and ideas which were done so more effectively in the first film. On a whole it just doesn't capture the intense power and poetic tussle of the original's subtle plot and elegant dialogue. The material seems to want to force-feed us the information and the narration by the damn DJ was really starting to get on my nerves after awhile. But nonetheless, it's a bloody treat (literally) and at least it's not just another slasher involving horny/drunk teenagers with a shallow plot.

The look and direction of the film was alright, but it lacked the polish production values and the touch of detail and class. Atmosphere was slightly disappointing, because the dreaded build up is only effective in short pockets because it's was replaced by too many jump out scares that eases the tension. Although saying that it did provide some freaky sequences, but that was on the behalf of Todd's towering presence. Also there's a nice amount of nasty deaths and blood splattering for gore fanatics. Great makeup achieved and you got to love those special effects. The score from the original is used again and it creates that sense of mystic and doom that flooded the original. On show again is strong camera-work that truly catches your eye. The performances are fair with two reasonable standouts. Easily Tony Todd as the harrowing Candyman, who lives the part as the tormented soul perfectly and Veronica Cartwright turns in a surprise performance. Kelly Rowan as the heroine isn't bad either. The dialogue isn't that riveting, but Todd's echoing voice causes chills to run up your spine. Something about this fictional legend is quite impressive in my eyes. He lives on the pain and the people's fear of him. This is what gives him power and keeps his legend alive. Really, he is nothing but a heart lorn soul.

Overall, it doesn't hold up to the original, but as for a sequel, it's not all that bad.

Really like the original 'Candyman', itself a well done adaptation of Clive Barker's excellent source material. Find it well-made and genuinely scary with great performances from Tony Todd (terrifying) and Virginia Madsen (in a difficult role) and a goosebump-inducing score from Phillip Glass. My only real problem with 'Candyman' has always been the for my tastes tacky ending, maybe a little bias as "open"/"it's not over yet" endings can not be my cup of tea.

A type of ending that gave way for two follow-ups, of which 'Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh' is the first (the other being the straight to video 'Candyman Day of the Dead'). Sadly, for me and it seems many people, both are nowhere near as good with almost all the components executed the complete opposite to how they were executed in 'Candyman'. Unlike the first, don't consider either sequel good films, with 'Farewell to the Flesh' being the lesser of two evils, and don't really see much reason as to why they were made.

Lets get the good things out of the way. Liked the colourful and creepy back-drop. The score does induce a few goosebumps, even if it is derivative.

It was great to have Todd back, cannot imagine anybody else as the titular character and Todd still evokes imposing chills which is more than his somewhat wanting material deserves.

However, the rest of the acting is mediocre at best and most of it downright bad. Madsen is sorely missed here, Kelly Rowan lacks the charisma and bite to carry the film or that's how it came over to me. The characters are uninteresting and unrootable, with motivations that are either vague or illogical (both at times too). There is nothing thought-provoking about the script either, the flow is long-winded and never natural and a lot of it descends into facepalm-inducing cheese. Was really surprised that it was directed by Bill Condon, he has done some good films (particularly 'Kinsey' and even more so 'Gods and Monsters'), but there is next to none of the flair, assurance or fluency those later films had, detected an inexperienced feel throughout here.

Despite the setting coming over well, it was a surprise to find that 'Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh' was not straight to video because it could easily have passed for it with its elsewhere under-budgeted production values. The story is the biggest problem, the complete lack of risks and originality (basically one big re-hash with derivative elements) further adds to the constant feeling felt throughout the film "why does this exist?" Furthermore there is no tension, suspense or dread, killed by a deadeningly sluggish pace and everything being so predictable. Not only does it feel watered/dumbed down because of this lack of atmosphere, but the over-reliance of cheap-looking gore gives the film a cynical, mean-spirited edge and cheapens the atmosphere.

Concluding, even with the over-reliance of gore there is very little flesh (meaning substance or atmosphere) on display. 3/10 Bethany Cox

CANDYMAN: FAREWELL TO THE FLESH is a rare example of a sequel done right & well. No, it's not excellent, and no, it's not a must-own either, but unlike the third entry, you won't regret buying this one. Arguable FAREWELL TO THE FLESH is a mere rehash of the first part, with much more gore and a higher body count, but the setting (New Orleans), a superb Tony Todd and the back story of how the Candyman came to be make it worthwhile. While the original relied more on the psychological horror, the sequel is more of a visceral experience and one of the few R-rated movies that will actually satisfy gorehounds as well.

Schoolteacher Annie Tarrant travels to New Orleans, to investigate her father's death, foolishly she summons The Candyman, and faces an almost impossible challenge to stay alive.

Farewell to the Flesh is actually a pretty decent follow up to the original, classic horror. I'm surprised to read a few comments where people say they prefer it to the original, no way on Earth, some elements are better, but the overall package just isn't in the same league.

The best thing about this film, and where it scores over the original, the storyline, it's actually a great story, we've got the origins of The Candyman himself, and a good backstory for Annie, our central character.

Tony Todd, what can you say, he's just got something, when he's on screen, you watch, he just has a natural charisma, mix that in with the dark elements of the character, it's winning mix.

Unfortunately, it looks a little cheaply made, and some of the scares are lacking, neither are enough to stop this from being a rather enjoyable sequel, just don't bother with the third.

6/10.

I saw this almost a decade ago. Revisited it recently on a fast forward mode.

This is the 2nd in the series n the settings change from Chicago to New Orleans.

While this one has more blood n gore n more backstory, somehow it lacked the atmosphere n tension compared to the original.

The story takes place in New Orleans during the Mardi Gras n we don't get to see a single nude woman. Even the shower scene is deprived of nudity.

Obviously this was made to cash in on the success of its predecessor and there's nothing wrong in that but the makers shud have at least paid attention to the script.

None of the kills are worth mentioning and they r not at all shocking or terrifying.

The kids coming to rescue the lead female character was a big lol.

Ok, before I begin I'd like to clear up a little squabble. This sequel to the early 90s original is called Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh. NOT Candyman 2. Anyone who disagrees with this statement might as well have said the aforementioned killer's name a certain number of times. The film, obviously, loses any sense of the originality that made the first in the series so breathtaking, but so what? People who claim sequels of this kind are ALWAYS bad should not watch them, because they never will be as good as their originals. This outing sees the hook-handed serial killer return for another gut-wrenching, blood-soaked dose of supernatural shenanigans, with the emphasis on BLOOD. Because there's lots of it, which is not a bad thing, cos we'd die without blood. If that makes sense. Final verdict: watch if you're a fan, don't if you hate sequels. Oh, by the way, i liked it. But that's maybe just me.

Not as bleakly derivative and shoddy as one might expect, Candyman 2 is still not all that inventive, original, or good as well. This time around the Candyman haunts New Orleans and a young, pretty teacher played by Kelly Rowan. Rowan, proving to her class that some urban legends have no basis in fact, looks in a mirror and says Candyman five times. Ohhhhh! We know what happens after that, and this film does all the expected with style if nothing else. Rowan's family, friends, and associates meet the hooks of the Candyman, and a hidden family secret which ties into the Candyman's past is presented. We learn why the Candyman is the way he is, etc... Okay, some of this was interesting, but much was just silly. Tony Todd gives another creepy, over-the-top performance as the man of dreams and pain(alright even now I am sounding like some of that tripe he spews). In some ways I enjoyed this film more than its original. The New Orleans setting is effectively shot and some of the character acting is decent. I especially liked the opening scene and the actor playing the professor. The murders are executed with lots of gusto as well. Again, I am just not a big fan of the Barbara Cartland-type romance between the Candyman and the girl amidst murder and mayhem. It just bores me. Nonetheless, Candyman 2 is a decent sequel in many regards. I think it will keep those that liked the first entertained, though they will more than likely enjoy the original far more.

A good Philip Glass score – albeit one that's rehashed from the original – is the only good thing about this lacklustre sequel that's more like an endless slasher flick than the evocative and atmospheric ghost story of the first film. Here, Candyman is given a back story (and the flashbacks are the only effective part of the production) while going after various characters who may or may not be his own descendants.

This is a lifeless and vapid film, one that it's genuinely difficult to watch while keeping your eyes open. Every signposted death is familiar from the original, and no extra lashings of grue are going to change that. The story delivers an uninspiring lead actress (Kelly Rowan) and gives her an equally uninteresting brother (William O'Leary), neither of whom do much to elicit sympathy in the viewer. Tony Todd, of course, is exceptional, but it takes more than a single actor to make a great film.

Bill Condon later won plaudits with GODS AND MONSTERS but I found his direction here to be stultifying – and dated in the worst, mid-1990s way. Aside from those aforementioned flashbacks, I can't think of a single moment of life or energy in the entire plot. It's merely uninspired, with Candyman whittling off one character after the other, while way too much time is given to one of those awfully clichéd sub-plots about the police suspecting an entirely innocent victim of the killings. Throwing in some 'name' character actors like Veronica Cartwright and Bill Nunn doesn't soften the experience, either.

'Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh' is an absolute masterpiece of cinema. Well, sort of. No, it's not that good really if you're looking at it as a stand-alone film, but - in terms of 'horror sequels' (i.e. a set of films which get dramatically worse with each new instalment) - it's not that bad. Yes, of course the original was better - how many sequels really do improve? But, and I say again, it's a horror sequel, therefore it should probably be afforded a little more slack than most films.

In the first outing we're introduced to the urban legend of 'Candyman' - a sinister figure who appears in the mirror behind you if you say his name three times. And then he helps you brush your teeth. Or kill you. In fact, mainly the killing part. And in quite a grisly fashion with a hook and much angry violence. Anyway, he's back and people are still yapping his handle at their bathroom mirrors in order to prove the legend is merely a myth. And then they die. Unless the story dictates that he doesn't want you dead.

In fact, this is just what happens to our hapless nineties heroine, played by Kelly Rowan. She only goes and stutters his name in the mirror five times, only to find he wants more from her than to open her neck up with a hook. And so, she has to find a way of banishing him, or just generally getting the hell away from him before he slaughters everyone she comes in contact with. Yes, hardly an inspired horror plot, but its main saving grace is Candyman himself, Tony Todd. No matter how good the original was, my gripe with it was that he wasn't in it enough. Here, his part has been well and truly beefed up to give him much more screen time and he seems to be really enjoying his stint as the deliciously-evil and sadistic monster and he ends up giving a performance that will cement him as a horror villain on a par with Freddy Kruger, Pinhead and Jason Vorhees.

Even though the film looks a little dated by today's standards and, judging by the hair and clothes, there's no doubt it was filmed in the nineties, the film-makes didn't seem to scrimp on the special effects. And, when I say effects, I basically mean gore! And, isn't that what most of us horror fans come to see? I don't think any 'claret-lovers' should leave a viewing of 'Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh' feeling short-changed regarding the amount of body parts sent flying during the film's runtime!

Like I say, it's not perfect, but it is a sequel to a far superior horror gem. Don't be too harsh on it and, if you like horror films in general, you should get something out of this, even if it's just an appreciation of just how well Tony Todd can command his presence on screen.

If ever there was an underrated horror classic of the 90's that is unfairly looked over or even often looked down upon, it's the beautiful and haunting film "Candyman", inspired by the stories of famed author Clive Barker. The 1992 original is one of the few true classics to emerge from the genre in its decade of release, boasting moody visuals, clever writing, fantastic characters and a unique point-of-view with its leaning towards being a sort-of dark "urban" fable. It cleverly used African American culture, commentary on racism and social unease to its benefit, crafting a thoughtful and heinous story revolving around the urban legend of a devious figure that emerges should you call his name into a mirror five times. A figure with a hook for a hand that was birthed from the dreadful murder of the son of a slave... a man who had fallen in love with a white woman and was hunted down and tortured to death as a twisted form of retribution from the racist townsfolk that surrounded him.

It was in many ways a perfect horror film. It was filled to the brim with tragedy and heartbreak. Demented scares and horrific visuals. But also well-developed and well-rounded characters and strong visual storytelling. Even to this day, there are people who are too frightened to say the name "Candyman" into a mirror because of the fears that the film has left with them.

It should come with no surprise then, that a sequel was soon commissioned and delivered just three short years later. "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" is very much a highly entertaining and enjoyable sequel, building the lead villain into much more of a classic "boogeyman" figure and piling on the scares (and bodies) to new heights. With some good direction and the continued grand performance of the devilish Tony Todd as our antagonistic vengeful spirit, the film has a lot going for it. However, as is all too often the case with sequels, bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. And despite the fun that is certainly to be had with the concept and execution, it does unfortunately come at the cost of a developed story and thought-out characters. The original "Candyman" was horror as art. "Farewell to the Flesh" is horror as junk-food. Just satisfying enough to be worth a go now and then... but not as fulfilling or as high-quality as you'd probably prefer.

Set in New Orleans just before the city explodes with Mardi Gras fever, we follow schoolteacher Annie Tarrant (Kelly Rowan), a young woman whose life has been shattered by the myth of the "Candyman"- her father murdered in the fashion of the mythical killer and her brother accused of murdering academic Philip Purcell (Michael Culkin in a fun-but-short-lived reprisal of his character from the original), who had written a book based on the myth and the events of the first film. Trying to prove to herself that the urban legend of the Candyman cannot possibly be true, Annie inadvertently summons him forth, setting off a chain of events that will not only reveal his dreadful origins in shocking detail, but threaten to tear Annie's life apart, piece by piece.

The thing that really throws me for a loop with this particular follow-up is just how often it seems to both hit and miss the mark in each and every scene. Director Bill Condon is certainly adept when it comes to moody, stylish visuals, and he seems to be having a grand bit of fun behind the camera. And he often does help elevate sequences beyond the shaky writing, giving us plenty of scares and jumps that will keep the audience entertained throughout the proceedings. But it never quite amounts to much outside of being general movie "fluff." It's not substantial, it's just shallow entertainment. This is mostly because of the script courtesy Rand Ravich and Mark Kruger, which is so focused on bringing us blood by the bucketful that all sense of story and character is often lost in the rush to get to the next horror set-piece. And while I am perfectly fine with horror as entertainment and "fluff" (it'd be hypocritical for me to say otherwise, as I do like mindless entertainment quite a bit), the issue is that this is a sequel to a highly artistic and deliberate original. It feels like too much of a step backward.

Still, I can't say its not a fun ride to take. Those stylish visuals and constant attempts at scares make it a breezy watch. Tony Todd once again delivers the goods with his continued chilling presence and phenomenal performance as a tragic villain with a dark history. There's a lot of interesting things to explore with its setting in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. And it even occasionally does some really cool things with the concept. At its core, there's just enough going on here to make it well worth checking out. It may be a bit of a shallow retread of the much better original. But you'll have a blast watching it, and you won't regret giving it a shot.

I'm giving "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" a slightly above average 6 out of 10.

Before going on to direct many critically much more acclaimed movies, Bill Condon's first major motion picture was a "Candyman" sequel, perhaps an unnecessary one, most definitely one that didn't carry most of the goodies from the first film with it, but also one that offers some simple horror fun, cheese and all.

Though despite that cheese, "Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh" visibly and undeniably thrives to achieve the same level of substance, dread and seriousness that the original possesses. Well, this sequel certainly has lost most of the subtext, at least half of the dread, and its seriousness, although apparent, gets muddled with lesser scares, story in lack of more layers, slower pacing and somewhat silly ending. In the center of the plot is Annie Tarrant, and, as it turns out, Candyman has some history with her family, which is now being haunted. The story does the decent thing of trying to expand the Candyman mythos and is intriguing as such, but ultimately starts slowing down in its exploration and ending up somewhere pretty expected. Kelly Rowan's Annie might not be on the same level as Virginia Madsen's Helen, but she makes up for a decent heroine worth tagging along. Thankfully, Tony Todd's still here and is as menacing as ever, at least as far as the script allows. Worth mentioning is also the character of Kingfisher, only seen on screen for a few seconds, but narrating with his radio voice at times throughout. Old-school radio narration elements are always cool. It only makes sense that the sequel has doubled down on gore and various action effects, which is as awesome as it is cheesy, especially if utilized just for a cheap thrill's sake. The ending, in that regard, was cool and climatic in a visual way, but in regards of the story, it was a total cop-out, I found it to be the most dissatisfying part of the whole movie.

Around the middle of of the movie I was sure I'd be able to give it a six and call it an overlooked sequel, but truth be told, it's lesser than the sum of its good parts. I do recommend checking it out if You're a fan of the character of Candyman. My rating: 5/10.

I think this movie is really, really underrated. OK, let's star… in the first "Candyman (1992)" you don't know if the killer was the Candyman or Helen and that was pretty great. I love that. In this one, the killer IS CANDYMAN, there isn't another explanation. The story of the man's past was well-done and the gore in this film is fantastic. There's a lot of jumps and suspense. The movie stars with a great opening, then it turns a little slow – but, it was alright: In the first one , Candyman appears at the 40 minutes of the movie – and, then, in the ending stars the slasher-gore chasing scenes. The acting was very decent, especially Tony Todd of course. He was as creepy as in the original, and Kelly Rowan was OK. Veronica Cartwright was good too, after her great performance almost 20 year before in "Alien (1979)". In every way, this was a good well-done sequel ALMOST as good as the original. It also features the great soundtrack by Phillip Glass. And it was a lot better than the stupid "Candyman: Day of the Dead (1999)" Enjoyable. 9.5/10.

Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh isn't an awful movie. It's well filmed, reasonably well acted, and has a little style, but it's just not necessary. General rule of thumb with sequels is that, if you can't bring anything interesting to the plate to further the story that was built in the previous film, you should just leave it alone. I guess the studios saw big money and tried to milk this for all it was worth and that's a shame. It did give us Veronica Cartwright as a boozy southern belle, so I suppose it's not all for nothing.

Many die-hard horror fans (myself included) absolutely worship the original "Candyman" because it's so genuinely scary and intelligently adapted from a Clive Barker story. This sequel (it looks more like a prequel, actually, with all those flashbacks) is not entirely unwatchable, it just immensely pales in comparison to the original, like so many other redundant sequels do. It seems like director Bill Condon and his army of crew members totally missed the point of Barker's tale and of the original film. "Candyman" isn't really about the killer himself! It's about the whole myth/urban legend behind his persona and how it scares superstitious people that believe in it. Is he real or are the bloody murders only committed in his name? "Farewell to the Flesh" pretty much takes away the entire mystery-aspect, as it extendedly reveals the origin of the Candyman character. Besides, we already heard the brief version of that story in the original. The rest of the film revolves on Annie Tarrant, who becomes dangerously close with the hook-handed bogeyman when she starts investigating her family history. The script suffers from too many tedious moments, there's almost no connection with the characters and the voice-over radio dude really annoyed the hell out of me. The violence is not that disturbing here as in the first film, but part two also definitely has its cruel and nasty moments. Tony Todd acts like he realizes that this is an inferior sequel and he doesn't really bother anymore to look (and sound) truly nightmarish. Judging by the other user-comments on this site, "Candyman 2: Farewell to the Flesh" appears to be reasonably successful and repeatedly referred to as a worthwhile sequel... Well, I disagree. I think it's a waste of time totally not worth of the Candyman-title.